United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
STEPHEN HYLES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendants Stevenson and Raines'
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34). For the reasons
explained below, it is recommended that Defendants'
motion be granted.
suit arises from Plaintiff's prior incarceration at Macon
State Prison (“MSP”). He alleges that on April
14, 2014, Defendants Stevenson and Raines, MSP officers, were
escorting Plaintiff from the MSP shower area to
Plaintiff's cell in the disciplinary segregation unit.
Compl. 5, ECF No. 1. While being escorted, Plaintiff's
hands were cuffed behind his back and Defendant Stevenson was
holding Plaintiff by his arm. Id.
contends that as he approached his cell, he heard cell number
238 being electronically opened by an officer in the control
booth, saw the door of that cell begin to open, and noted
that the door was not properly latched. Id.
Plaintiff avers that an inmate then ran out the open door of
cell number 238 and began repeatedly stabbing Plaintiff with
a “thick, sharpened, screw-type weapon of ten to 12
inches long.” Id. Plaintiff allegedly
“cried out for help and tried to defend [himself],
” while Defendants Stevenson and Raines watched the
assault, did not call for assistance, and “fail[ed] to
use their chemical agents of pepper spray or any other
preventative means to stop [the] inmate from stabbing
[Plaintiff].” Id. Plaintiff contends that
Defendants “watched the whole assault unfold for
approximately 2 ½ to 3 minutes before making a radio
call for assistance.” Id.
filed claims against multiple MSP officials, seeking
declaratory relief, compensatory, punitive, and nominal
damages, a jury trial, and all additional costs associated
with the alleged incident. Compl. 6. After preliminary review
of Plaintiff's complaint, only claims against Defendants
Stevenson and Raines for deliberate indifference to his
safety by failing to intervene remain. Order 1-2, Aug. 2,
2016, ECF No. 15; Order & R. 7, June 7, 2016, ECF No. 10.
On March 23, 2018, Defendants moved for summary judgment in
their favor (ECF No. 34).
Summary Judgment Standard
judgment may be granted only “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In determining whether a genuine
dispute of material fact exists to defeat a motion
for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light
most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment,
drawing all justifiable inferences in the opposing
party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). A fact is material if it
is relevant or necessary to the outcome of the suit.
Id. at 248. A factual dispute is genuine if
the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a
verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
did not respond to Defendants' motion for summary
judgment or their statement of facts despite being given
notice from the Court of the need to do so. Notice of Summ.
J. Mot. 1, ECF No. 36. When reviewing a summary judgment
motion, the Court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, but the non-moving party
may not merely rest on his allegations when evidence is
presented that firmly rebuts those allegations. “The
party moving for summary judgment bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion  and identifying those portions of the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact.” Jones v. UPS Ground
Freight, 683 F.3d 1283, 1292 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted) (alterations in
original). “The burden then shifts to the non-moving
party to rebut that showing by producing affidavits or other
relevant and admissible evidence beyond the pleadings.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). “The non-moving party does not satisfy its
burden if the rebuttal evidence is merely colorable, or is
not significantly probative of a disputed fact.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
Local Rule 56, a non-movant must respond “to each of
the movant's numbered material facts[, and] [a]ll
material facts contained in the moving party's statement
which are not specifically controverted by specific citation
to the record shall be deemed to have been admitted, unless
otherwise inappropriate.” M.D. Ga. L. R. 56. Because
Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants' motion for
summary judgment and Defendants' factual assertions are
supported by record evidence (ECF Nos. 34-2, 34-3, 34-4,
34-5), the Court deems admitted those facts not specifically
controverted by Plaintiff. See M.D. Ga. L. R. 56.
argue that summary judgment should be granted in their favor
because Plaintiff “cannot prove the required deliberate
indifference.” Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. 6, ECF
No. 34-1. They contend that the undisputed record shows they
“did what they could [to aid Plaintiff] without risking
their own lives.” Id. Plaintiff has not
responded to Defendants' motion for summary judgment or
the arguments contained therein. The Court finds the record
evidence insufficient to support Plaintiff's Eighth
Amendment claim and thus recommends granting Defendants'
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34).
Failure to ...